Posts in Patents

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first major omnibus order list of the October 2026 term, denying petitions for writ of certiorari in a series of intellectual property-related cases. These denials from the nation’s highest court leave in place contested rulings over the application of apportionment principles to damages in patent and trade secret cases. Other cert denials include appeals to IP-related claims barred under res judicata, including one petition arguing for a manifest injustice exception, and yet another challenge to the Section 101 patent-eligibility inquiry developed at the Federal Circuit.

In economic theory, corporate value creation can be attributed to many factors and conflicting preferences. Prioritizing different factors produces a set of different outcomes and the outcome that is seemingly most efficient becomes the accepted norm. Sometimes however, corporate actors rely on accepted business practices which, while taken in the pursuit of the most optimal outcome, facilitate market distortions. Hit by a compute-driven demand shock and faced with resource scarcity, Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron have opted to allocate production capacity in a way that has exacerbated an industry- wide memory card supply shortage. But to fully understand why the price of hardware components and consumer electronic devices has been steadily surging, we must first start with Nvidia.

Carrie Hafeman, an independent inventor who has been fighting a years-long patent battle against Google and Microsoft, has filed a petition for rehearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) June 2026 precedential decision affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions invalidating all claims of three of her patents. Hafeman is pursuing her case pro se after her attorneys recently withdrew.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in O’Reilly Winship LLC v. SnapRays LLC, reversing in part, affirming in part, and vacating in part a district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement on two powered cover plate patents. The CAFC concluded that claim 1 of one patent is not as limited as the district court determined, and it upheld the district court’s rulings on other disputed claim limitations.

John F. Witherspoon, who passed away September 25, 2026, had a stellar career in patent law that spanned more than 50 years. He was devoted to private law practice, government service, and law school teaching. He was a beloved mentor to countless students and younger lawyers and an inspiration to all who knew him.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Friday in Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc. affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found claims 1 through 33 of a patent on herbicide-degrading enzymes unpatentable for lack of enablement. The CAFC rejected arguments that the PTAB improperly relied on experimental data generated after the patent’s priority date and abused its discretion in crediting an expert witness.

Congress has been holding hearings on pharmaceutical patents and drug prices, along with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) fee-setting and oversight. During these hearings, America’s pharmaceutical innovators face an unusual criticism: They are accused of abusing the patent system not only when they invent new medicines, but also when they improve them.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision affirming a finding of invalidity of certain claims of Satius Holding, LLC’s wireless communications patent, but holding that the district court’s reasoning, which focused on indefiniteness, was erroneous.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A., affirming a U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware judgment for Galderma S.A. on tortious interference, breach of contract, and trade secret misappropriation claims. The CAFC held that Truinject Corporation forfeited its arguments on appeal about the dismissal of its tortious interference claim and the summary judgment of no damages.

Patent infringement litigation is often discussed in terms of high-profile disputes or headline verdicts. What receives less attention is the cost of getting there. Whether a company is enforcing its patent rights or defending against a claim, the financial impact of patent litigation can be significant long before a case ever reaches trial. For many businesses, particularly those operating in technology-driven industries, patent litigation is no longer just a legal issue. It is a business consideration that can influence strategy, resource allocation and long-term planning.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated dismissing ParkerVision’s appeal from a judgment of non-infringement for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The CAFC determined that a partial final judgment entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) was not final, since it resolved infringement of only some claims of a single patent. The CAFC also denied ParkerVision’s request to reassign the case to a different district judge on remand.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday vacating and remanding a district court ruling that had denied Pen-Tech Associates, Inc.’s motion for sanctions and attorney’s fees due to Epic Tech, LLC’s allegedly frivolous infringement claims. The CAFC found the district court had provided “insufficient detail to permit meaningful review.”

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires faced the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Tuesday in an oversight hearing pushing for more information on several of the policy changes his administration has put in place. The hearing was the last over which its current Chairman, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), will preside.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued an updated memorandum today addressed to all patent applicants and practitioners that provides a flowchart for analyzing Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMEDs) submitted under 37 C.F.R. Section 1.132 and reviews best practices for submitting them. The memo, from USPTO Director John Squires, is an addendum to an April 2026 SMED memorandum and, according to the USPTO, “this memorandum is consistent with existing USPTO guidance and does not announce any new USPTO practice or procedure.”

Using one associate to prepare a claim construction chart and a second to check it is ordinary practice. In In re Brian E. Mitchell, Proceeding No. D2026-16, a patent attorney did the same with two generative AI tools: one to draft proposed claim constructions and a second to review them. Erroneous citations still reached the district court, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) publicly reprimanded him for that.